Dating Coach Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I think you are hung up on the terms instead of the actual point, because we are not talking about "opinions" even if we are talking in generalities. These things are simple facts in most cases. Focus on only the positive traits. "Nice guys" usually accept abuse from their partner, "jerks" don't. Being able to stand up for yourself to your partner is a very positive quality that most "Nice Guys" tend to lack. "Jerks" usually don't hold their feelings inside, "nice guys" often do. "Nice Guys" tend to have this need for approval which causes them to be dishonest. Instead of voicing their opposing opinion and risking their partner getting mad at them they often remain silent or even pretend to believe what their partner believes. This is not a positive trait and it exudes weakness. That is not attractive. What is attractive is someone who can stand up for what they believe in, who will voice that opinion (in a mature way), and who's not afraid to be theirself. This is something the "jerk" doesn't have problems with, but the "nice guy" usually does. It's a bad need for approval. "Nice guys" will often try and overprovide for a chick as a way to get a chick. "Jerks" don't do this. This also ties in with the "Nice Guys" insecurity and need to approval. They try too hard and it shows their insecurity-which is unattractive. "Jerks" tend to be more confident in that by being themselves that is enough. They don't have to shower the girl with gifts to feel comfortable that their girl likes them in return. They are secure-and that being secure is attractive. Now I also am not sure if I buy into the "possessiveness" as being an attractive trait, but I guess it depends upon what heloladies means. If he means it like I suspect then he has a point. Here's a scenario that I have seen a lot on forums: John and his girlfriend Steph live together in an apartment. Steph likes to chat online with people, but then recently decided that she wanted to meet up with a guy that she met online. She doesn't ask John if he is okay with it, she simply tells him that she is going to do it and goes. John shrugged it off and thought to himself that he trusts her and should show it. Steph met that guy, and then another, and then another, and then another. John started to think to himself that something is not right but he says nothing. One day while browsing his myspace he looks at hers and notices some messages between her and another guy making fun of him! He confronts her about this and she admits that two of these meetings with two different guys led to "kissing". John was upset but he did not break things off, nor did he forbid her to keep meeting guys online. The next situation happened when she broke plans they've had to go to his sisters wedding and told him that a guy she had been talking to online for a couple of weeks was coming in to town (from 3 states away) to see her and she couldn't ask him to turn around since he was already severl hours into the trip. Does John break it off with Steph? Does John tell her that if she meets up with this guy that it's over? No, John again tried to prove to her that he was an understanding guy and let it happen. This story is true, and it got worse until we finally convinced him to dump this girl and move on. The story was pretty amazing and what made it really wild is when "Steph" got online to defend herself-because she posted on the same forum. We exposed her as the selfish spoiled brat that she was, and caught her in two more lies. He finally kicked her out of the apartment. So as far as being more "possessive", perhaps that's the wrong term to use, because what would have helped John is if he stood up for himself and told her that if she meets up with these guys from the internet then the relationship is over. Steph would have called him possessive but I believe that is not the case, it means that the guy respects himself and his relationship and won't tolerate dating someone who will disrespect it. If he had shown her this strength then perhaps she would have been less likely to meet up with other people knowing that John would have ended the relationship. After all once we finally convinced John to end it the girl started begging for him to go to "counciling" with her and put the blame of "giving up on the relationship" on his shoulders rather than her own for cheating and lying. But then again, maybe she would have cheated anyway-she was a wackjob. Bottom line, there are many things that the weak "Nice Guy" needs to change because his weakness costs him respect, and that in turn costs attraction. Perhaps the term "Jerks" shouldn't even be used because of the negative connotation that comes with it, but it doesn't change the truth of the point whether you are willing to accept it or not. Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.